Mr. Kramers proposition to develop part of the wetland/dunes area in Seaview is fraught with Rube Goldberg-like solutions to serious problems. There are too many valid, but unanswered questions concerning the proposed solutions. Speculating that the proposed solutions will work does not lend validity/truth to the solutions nor does it mandate a go-ahead. This is especially true when those crafting the answers have a vested interest in having the project move forward.
The topics of concern include road and flood hazards, repercussions to neighboring property, public safety and protection, natural disasters, keeping wetlands adequately, hydrologically connected, and mitigation, its use and its long-term effect on the wetlands and dunes. Blithely, we seem to be overlooking this aspect of mitigation. Ultimately, how much land can be mitigated without changing the nature of the area?
Specifically, there are issues that could place the county at serious financial risk. The proposed 12-foot wide gravel driveway along the 39th Place (county easement) I am sure in no way meets county, state and federal roadway regulations/standards, and thus could subject the county to future significant costs and liabilities. The 8-foot wide, 160-foot long bridge does not seem to have safety features that would prevent damage to adjacent property owners rights in case of any accident that pollutes the wetlands.
The applicant claims hardship in spite of the fact that he knew of the sites liabilities before he purchased the property. He has not proven that the public will not suffer any detrimental effects. This project should not receive the variances sought.
Make no mistake: If this proposal is approved, the number of requests to build, obtain variances and mitigation will overwhelm the county offices. If this proposal, in its extremity, is found acceptable, what grounds would we ever have for turning down any subsequent proposal?
Jean Z. Thompson